Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help
From: Jem (xxx_at_xxx.com)
Date: 11/10/04
- Next message: William R. Watt: "Re: group theory fraud"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Element of?"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Next in thread: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:48:34 -0500
Eugene Shubert <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in message
news:41916b71$1@sys13.hou.wt.net...
> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:PR3kd.6277$C%4.4326@lakeread04...
> > Eugene Shubert wrote
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=418dc083@sys13.hou.wt.net
> >
> > In order to derive the Lorentz transformation as used in Relativity,
> > it's necessary to not only show a Lorentzian relationship between
> > variables, but show (or postulate) that those variables represent
> > distance and time as measured by the Standard rulers and clocks
> > of every Inertial observer.
> >
> > As has been pointed out to you once or twice, you haven't done
> > that.
>
> jem,
>
> The purpose of this thread is about the unanimous denial of simple
> logic among the physicists of sci.physics.relativity. Do you agree
> or disagree with the objections stated by the respected guru of
> relativity, Dr. Tom Roberts, copied to
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3437#3437
> and summarized here:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=418dc083@sys13.hou.wt.net
Einstein's development of the LT distinguishes the old way of thinking from
the new way with a single postulate - there's a speed limit. No LT
derivation is going to be clearer than that, but particularly not one that
relies on some arbitrary clock construction scheme that's far removed from
intuition. Along with the 2D limitation, that appears to have been Tom
Roberts' main objection.
My guess is that objections to your use of the variable v are due to the
fact that v is normally *assumed* to represent relative speed in SR, so at
first glance it may look like you're giving it a second definition (and yes,
I realize that v can be shown to represent speed once the derivation is
complete).
- Next message: William R. Watt: "Re: group theory fraud"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Element of?"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Next in thread: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
